Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

RebelWithanAK · Oct 8, 2003, 10:36 pm

I also believe in a Right to Choice (which is not the same as condoning abortion for the sake of having one. That's what contraceptives are for), but your logic bothers me.

a) Trees are quite alive (not to mention great machines in the production of oxygen), and are far more developed than embryos.

b) I think you mean, "If the woman is NOT very far along in her pregnancy," which - and I know you're oversimplifying - doesn't account for cases when the woman's own mortality is threatened.

c - I add my own letters) Stem Cell research is a great benefit, one which many staunch Republicans actually were in favor of, mainly because there are quite a lot of old farts in their ranks who are currently or are soon to be afflicted with the forms of cancer the research is addressing. Of course it's amoral, but the government should not - I repeat, should NOT - be legislating morality. However, it can and should be protecting the lives of its citizens, and this can certainly be placed under that umbrella.

d) Which lead us to the fact that embryos can't. They're not citizens. They're not citizens until they're born. They're not even people until they're born. To hold the belief that they are guaranteed the same rights as real, whole, live people is to hold court to medieval values as to the nature of what we're dealing with - ie; miniature beings. There is no medical evidence that they are to be considered individual beings, but there is plenty of medical evidence to the contrary - that they are essentially parasitic of their host until they're born. Which would make sense. Yes, again, it's amoral, but that's for the woman to decide - for she IS a citizen and thus has rights to her body and whatever parasitic beings are within it.

Oct 8, 2003, 10:36 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I also believe in a Right to Choice (which is not the same as condoning abortion for the sake of having one. That's what contraceptives are for), but your logic bothers me. a) Trees are quite alive (not to mention great machines in the production of oxygen), and are far more developed than embryos. b) I think you mean, "If the woman is NOT very far along in her pregnancy," which - and I know you're oversimplifying - doesn't account for cases when the woman's own mortality is threatened. c - I add my own letters) Stem Cell research is a great benefit, one which many staunch Republicans actually were in favor of, mainly because there are quite a lot of old farts in their ranks who are currently or are soon to be afflicted with the forms of cancer the research is addressing. Of course it's amoral, but the government should not - I repeat, should NOT - be legislating morality. However, it can and should be protecting the lives of its citizens, and this can certainly be placed under that umbrella. d) Which lead us to the fact that embryos can't. They're not citizens. They're not citizens until they're born. They're not even people until they're born. To hold the belief that they are guaranteed the same rights as real, whole, live people is to hold court to medieval values as to the nature of what we're dealing with - ie; miniature beings. There is no medical evidence that they are to be considered individual beings, but there is plenty of medical evidence to the contrary - that they are essentially parasitic of their host until they're born. Which would make sense. Yes, again, it's amoral, but that's for the woman to decide - for she IS a citizen and thus has rights to her body and whatever parasitic beings are within it. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.